Re: PAB revised draft endorsement

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>]

> From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
>   The gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body welcomes the announcement by IANA
>   of the third draft of the draft Bylaws and Articles of
>   Incorporation, and endorses them as the basis for creation of the
>   new IANA.
    ////////independent IANA non-profit corporation
>
>   PAB further wishes to express its appreciaton for the effort
>   undertaken by IANA to act as a "fair broker" for consensus among
>   stakeholders.  It is clear to all objective parties that no single
>   group currently represents the consensus of all stakeholders in the
>   Internet.  And, while IANA itself is not immune from bias, three
>   characteristics make it uniquely suited to act as a "fair broker":
>   1) it has a long and respected history that gives ample proof of its
>   ability to act in a fair and impartial manner, 2) no other entity
>   knows as much about the operational requirements for the new IANA,
>   and 3) no other entity has spent more time in intelligent
>   consideration of the requirements for the new IANA.
>
That last (3) is a bit controversial.  Actually, I urged incorporation
some time ago, but was told we wouldn't need it, that all this was taken
care of by having a chartering organization (IAB)....  And then Postel
didn't get his RFC Editor and IANA charters written and published in 5
years.  So much for "more time".  Anyway, please drop that last clause.

>   One of the stakeholder forums is the International Forum for the
>   White Paper (IFWP).  This process has, for the last two months,
>   brought together a significant number of stakeholders of the
>   Internet from around the world, and has facilitated discussion of
>   some of the most important issues regarding the redesign of IANA.
                                                    ////////incorporation
>
>   As suggested by Tamar Frankel, facilitator of the IFWP process,
>   consensus search has been carried out in small break-out sessions,
                                                                     ;
>   but generally, consensus has not been pursued in the plenary
>   sessions of this meetings.  This allows talk about work-in-progress,
                  //ese                   /ed
>   without prejudicing results for further meetings, but does not
                                                          ////did
>   provide a mechanism for aggregating consenus.
>
>   However, many of the results of the IFWP do seem to reflect clear
>   consensus of the Internet Community, and we believe they have been
>   correctly understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration
                                     ////////////reflected
>   of the Bylaws.
>
>   An important area for which there has been wide agreement was that
>   there be some kind of membership organization associated with the
>   new IANA, with at least some directors elected from a general
>   membership.  Some camps insist that the membership should be of
                      /////participants
>   individuals only; others insist that only organizational membership
>   be allowed.
>
>   The draft Bylaws defer implementation of such a structure, citing
>   several significant difficulties with various implementations of a
>   membership organization.  It is also worth noting that the
>   controversies alluded to above would have to be resolved, and IANA
                                                                  ////
>   feels (rightly, we believe) that these issues simply cannot be
    ///////////////           /
>   resolved in a time frame consistent with what is required.
                /the         remaining before existing IANA funding expires.

>
>   PAB is uniquely suited to comment on this matter.  It is, in fact, a
>   membership organization.  It has no financial requirements for
>   membership, such as dues or membership fees, but does require a
>   signature on a legal document.  Only legal constituted organizations
                                         legally
>   can be members, but, because there is no financial requirement, very
                  ;
>   small organizations, such as sole proprietorship businesses, have
>   joined.
>
>   PAB has little real power, and has not existed for even a year, yet
>   it has already experienced what can fairly be called a takeover
>   attempt.  This illustrates without a doubt that IANA's concerns are
                                                    //////community
>   well founded, and implementation of a membership organization would
>   have to be done very cautiously.  An open membership organization
>   with significant power would be a much jucier target than PAB, and
                                           juicier
>   in particular, direct membership with proxies would be an open
>   invitation for manipulation.
>
>   That being said, the very existence of PAB is predicated on the
>   worth of membership organizations.  We note that the proposed
>   structure of IANA includes half the directors being selected through
>   Support Organizations, with the remaining half selected at large
>   through some as yet undetermined process.  If that process were some
>   sort of election conducted by a carefully constructed member
                                              constituted membership
>   organization, with legal binding on the members, the model would be
>   very close to the PAB/POC model.  We encourage IANA and the interim
>   board to consider this very seriously, and we look forward to
>   working with them on this matter.
>
Not bad!

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32